Re [OPE-L:4984]: > Jerry keeps asserting without the least *proof* that > there is no possible interpretation of that passage other > than Fred's. The quotation the so clear and unambivalent that the proof is the quotation itself. It is as if there is a debate between B & C over what A wrote about what can cause a change in X. Then C brings forward an unambiguous statement from A about what, in A's words, can "clearly" and "only" cause a change in X Then the ONLY possible challenge left for B re interpreting the quotation is to challenge whether A did in fact make this statement or whether it constituted something like a "typo". In the present case, no one would make such a preposterous claim about a "typo" or a "mistranslation", etc.. Again I emphasize that this is a textual debate. The proof is in Marx's own words. We are very lucky here to have such a clear and unambiguous statement -- it is rare indeed for these type of debates. As for calls elsewhere that I make a retraction, I just see that as part of a continuing effort to steer the discussion away from the obvious conclusion about what the smoking gun represents to the TM/AK interpretation of the transformation. Others I believe, including RB, see the evasion. To be fair to the TSSI, I think that interpretation is *much more* than just a particular interpretation of the transformation. Hence, any conclusions that are drawn from this debate can not be automatically applied to other issues addressed by the TSSI. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:39 EST